If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
The strange case of Harry's pothead foe...
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/8161154.stm
Sorry had to be done
So the actor who plays Vincent Crabbe has pleaded guilty to Cannabis cultivation, got a community sentence (120 hours community service).
What I am worried about is that (if the reporting was correct) he was arrested for taking a photograph of the police - which led them to seize and inspect the camera.
So this law now appears to be another situation in which anyone holding a camera in the vicinity of a police officer could be at risk of arrest.
If the reporting is inaccurate, and they were stopped for other reasons, then fine. But taking a photograph of a public servant in a public place is now criminal.
Vague, broad and severe powers I find worrying.
Sorry had to be done
So the actor who plays Vincent Crabbe has pleaded guilty to Cannabis cultivation, got a community sentence (120 hours community service).
What I am worried about is that (if the reporting was correct) he was arrested for taking a photograph of the police - which led them to seize and inspect the camera.
So this law now appears to be another situation in which anyone holding a camera in the vicinity of a police officer could be at risk of arrest.
If the reporting is inaccurate, and they were stopped for other reasons, then fine. But taking a photograph of a public servant in a public place is now criminal.
Vague, broad and severe powers I find worrying.
0
Comments
[mistaken Post _ New Thread Started].
Whatever your feelings on the new law, it's there. If you're going to take photos of cops in London (especially) you're going to get some suspicious glances. When they do look at your camera and find photos of a cannabis grow then like on the other thread about privacy, you're an idiot for having them there.
So I don't think the idea that we as citizens are responsible for the Police abusing powers designed ostensibly to fight terrorism is really a tenable argument.
It said he was arrested for one thing, then for another.
Surely if you are arrested for one thing, you would then be charged with another once you get to the station. Yes its being pedantic, but it should be right.
I swear this thread wasn't here when I started to compose my post... :mad:
You can be "further arrested" for any other offences that come to light. This can be done anywhere. If you get stopped in the street and found in posession of a knife for instance you'll be arrested there and then.
If one the journey back a rock of crack falls out your pants then you'll be done for that too.
Martin, I really hope the home office hurry up and issue the guidance. The MET are making us all look bad. My force issued us with little cards with the whens, wheres and whys of dealing with photographers in conjunction with the NUJ.
The first bullet point basically states that photographers have a right to be there. The only power we have to move them is if they're in the middle of a crime scene or if their presence is causing harassment/alarm/distress to someone.
Even then the guidance stipulates that you remain polite/profesional, explain your reasoning behind it ie.taking photos of a person's remains or a car accident with people trapped isn't appropriate, especially if the family are about to see you and decide to smash your face in e.t.c. e.t.c.
I do believe though, that the law will remain, regardless of how we feel about it. What is important is to ensure that it is used properly. ie on people who could actually be a terrorist. I do believe the idea behind it is that if you raid a house and find loads of pictures of cops, that's when you arrest. Or if you're in special branch and the taking of photos is a course of action (perhaps following cops around and standing outside police stations and getting car number plates e.t.c.)
Why should the police have any right to seize your camera in the first place?